Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"made even worse by not feeling shy about using them"
When did the Iranain Navy last attack anyone ?
It has 3 Kilos one of which was recently refurbed in-country - the other two haven't been touched for years
they have 5 frigates- 3 of which are over 25 years old
3 corvettes - one of which is a converted Government yacht
the Seaforth World Naval Review 2013 refers to it's "increasingly elderly navy.."
When did the Iranain Navy last attack anyone ?
It has 3 Kilos one of which was recently refurbed in-country - the other two haven't been touched for years
they have 5 frigates- 3 of which are over 25 years old
3 corvettes - one of which is a converted Government yacht
the Seaforth World Naval Review 2013 refers to it's "increasingly elderly navy.."
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Here,there,everywhere
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you fella's not take this little discussion about a couple of boats across to rum ration ?
WEBF, the first link about Dragon is so full of spin and self importance it is pathetic to read tbh.
WEBF, the first link about Dragon is so full of spin and self importance it is pathetic to read tbh.
Originally Posted by Fire 'n' Forget
Can you fella's not take this little discussion about a couple of boats across to rum ration?
Originally Posted by Fire 'n' Forget
WEBF, the first link about Dragon is so full of spin and self importance it is pathetic to read tbh.
Given your track record of denigrating anything and anyone (particularly naval) achieving success, your chippy comments are at least consistent if increasingly tedious.
including those with miniscule RCS
Wrathmonk - Good point but RCS would be only part of the equation in the successful detection, identification, tracking and prosecution of JSF; many other factors would come into play, some quite sneaky. Moreover, if any conceivable OPFOR manages to acquire radar matching Sampson's sophisticated capability to target multiple supersonic cricket ball-sized objects simultanously, let's hope they don't also have PAAMS' other bells & whistles, nor highly trained, well-led operators, e.g. personnel able to filter and isolate threats like Silkworm missiles out of all the other clutter and not misidentify and shoot down non-threatening objects like airliners (or even cricket balls).
HH
I hope the Seaforth Review also covers all the mini and midget subs, the FAC and FIAC. You don't need big ships to cause havoc in the Gulf.
Seaforth World Naval Review 2013 refers to it's "increasingly elderly navy.."
Thread Starter
From Yesterday's Sunday Times - Top general: Cuts mean UK forces can't do the job
"One of Britain’s top generals has warned that the armed forces have been “cut to the bone”, “hollowed out” and are “failing”.
In a devastating critique, General Sir Richard Shirreff, the outgoing Nato deputy supreme commander, branded plans to recruit thousands of reserve troops to offset the shrinking regular army “one hell of a risk” and warned the “jury is still out” on whether it would succeed.
He said Russia’s annexation of Crimea had changed the “defence paradigm” in Europe and required Britain to “prioritise defence”.
However, he feared cuts had already hit the UK’s military capabilities hard, particularly the navy, which had been so “cut to the bone” that it could not take part in Nato maritime operations.
“A hollowed-out navy means you can’t project power. I’ve heard this said in the Ministry of Defence: ‘The yardstick by which we measure ourselves is our ability to punch above our weight’. You can’t do that now. By that yardstick, therefore, we’re failing.”
His comments are the most outspoken and critical by a serving senior officer since the coalition was formed in 2010. Shirreff, the third most senior officer in the British army, stepped down from his Nato post on Friday and is due to leave the army in August.
His intervention is likely to reignite the debate over whether David Cameron’s government has cut defence spending too far at a time of growing global instability. Under a plan called Army 2020, the size of the regular army is being slashed from 102,000 to 82,000, the lowest level since Napoleonic times.
Shirreff said the architects of it had “made a pretty good fist of a very difficult hand of cards” but he is clear that the restructuring will weaken the armed forces. “I wouldn’t want to let anybody think that I think that Army 2020 is good news, it’s not,” he said.
“The sort of defence cuts we have seen . . . have really hollowed out the British armed forces and I think that people need to sit up and recognise that.”
Shirreff is the first senior officer publicly to voice serious concerns about the government’s £1.8bn plan to recruit a 35,000-strong reserve force by 2018. The plan, a cornerstone of the government’s defence policy, has threatened to unravel due to a recruitment crisis.
Shirreff said it was yet to be demonstrated whether moving to an army so dependent on reserve forces “is going to work or not”.
“It’s certainly one hell of a risk. The point at which a risk becomes a gamble is a subjective view. I think the jury is out still.”
A “complete shift in culture” among employers and the wider public would be needed for the plan to succeed, he said. “If the dependence on the reserves is going to work . . . the nation needs to get behind this. It’s not just the armed forces — this is everybody’s business.”
Despite his position in the army, Shirreff said his biggest concern was the impact the cuts are having on the Royal Navy, which now has only 19 frigates and destroyers.
“It is very noticeable in Nato that the one navy which is never participating in Nato maritime operations pretty much is the Royal Navy, which sends a pretty bad signal for a navy which [was] once one of the world’s greatest navies . . . that has an impact in the way people think about the UK. This is the result, I think, of cutting to the bone.”
Shirreff, a married father of two, is one of the most battle-hardened and experienced officers in the army. He fought as a tank-squadron leader in the Gulf War in 1991 and commanded British troops in Basra in 2006. He last week returned to Britain after serving three years with Nato. He spoke to The Sunday Times as he left from Nato’s headquarters in Belgium, where he has been co-ordinating the alliance’s response to Russia’s takeover of Crimea and the build-up of forces on Ukraine’s eastern border.
Shirreff believes it is “very plausible” that the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, could extend his “land grab” into eastern and southern Ukraine and that even the invasion of Latvia, a Nato country, is a “realistic” scenario.
“He has demonstrated that armed illegal aggression is part of the way he does business, so anything is possible,” said Shirreff.
After years of being treated by Nato as a “strategic partner”, Russia is now “a strategic adversary”, he said.
Shirreff argues that the UK and other European nations need to protect their defence budgets to deter Russia. This would mean deeper cuts to other Whitehall departments when further cuts are made after the next election.
“It may just be that rather than defence, those cuts, which will have to come, come from other budgets and other departments,” he said. “We all support the efforts to get the deficit down but it is all about priorities. What really matters? Well, the first duty of government is to protect the nation. Defence is really, really important. And the electorate need to understand there is no point in having hospitals and schools and welfare unless the country is safe.”
Unlike the Russians, the UK had lost the ability to manoeuvre huge army formations, of around 20,000 troops, around the battlefield, Shirreff said. Complex wargame exercises involving an entire division of troops, which had not been held for more than 20 years, needed to be resumed, he said."
"One of Britain’s top generals has warned that the armed forces have been “cut to the bone”, “hollowed out” and are “failing”.
In a devastating critique, General Sir Richard Shirreff, the outgoing Nato deputy supreme commander, branded plans to recruit thousands of reserve troops to offset the shrinking regular army “one hell of a risk” and warned the “jury is still out” on whether it would succeed.
He said Russia’s annexation of Crimea had changed the “defence paradigm” in Europe and required Britain to “prioritise defence”.
However, he feared cuts had already hit the UK’s military capabilities hard, particularly the navy, which had been so “cut to the bone” that it could not take part in Nato maritime operations.
“A hollowed-out navy means you can’t project power. I’ve heard this said in the Ministry of Defence: ‘The yardstick by which we measure ourselves is our ability to punch above our weight’. You can’t do that now. By that yardstick, therefore, we’re failing.”
His comments are the most outspoken and critical by a serving senior officer since the coalition was formed in 2010. Shirreff, the third most senior officer in the British army, stepped down from his Nato post on Friday and is due to leave the army in August.
His intervention is likely to reignite the debate over whether David Cameron’s government has cut defence spending too far at a time of growing global instability. Under a plan called Army 2020, the size of the regular army is being slashed from 102,000 to 82,000, the lowest level since Napoleonic times.
Shirreff said the architects of it had “made a pretty good fist of a very difficult hand of cards” but he is clear that the restructuring will weaken the armed forces. “I wouldn’t want to let anybody think that I think that Army 2020 is good news, it’s not,” he said.
“The sort of defence cuts we have seen . . . have really hollowed out the British armed forces and I think that people need to sit up and recognise that.”
Shirreff is the first senior officer publicly to voice serious concerns about the government’s £1.8bn plan to recruit a 35,000-strong reserve force by 2018. The plan, a cornerstone of the government’s defence policy, has threatened to unravel due to a recruitment crisis.
Shirreff said it was yet to be demonstrated whether moving to an army so dependent on reserve forces “is going to work or not”.
“It’s certainly one hell of a risk. The point at which a risk becomes a gamble is a subjective view. I think the jury is out still.”
A “complete shift in culture” among employers and the wider public would be needed for the plan to succeed, he said. “If the dependence on the reserves is going to work . . . the nation needs to get behind this. It’s not just the armed forces — this is everybody’s business.”
Despite his position in the army, Shirreff said his biggest concern was the impact the cuts are having on the Royal Navy, which now has only 19 frigates and destroyers.
“It is very noticeable in Nato that the one navy which is never participating in Nato maritime operations pretty much is the Royal Navy, which sends a pretty bad signal for a navy which [was] once one of the world’s greatest navies . . . that has an impact in the way people think about the UK. This is the result, I think, of cutting to the bone.”
Shirreff, a married father of two, is one of the most battle-hardened and experienced officers in the army. He fought as a tank-squadron leader in the Gulf War in 1991 and commanded British troops in Basra in 2006. He last week returned to Britain after serving three years with Nato. He spoke to The Sunday Times as he left from Nato’s headquarters in Belgium, where he has been co-ordinating the alliance’s response to Russia’s takeover of Crimea and the build-up of forces on Ukraine’s eastern border.
Shirreff believes it is “very plausible” that the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, could extend his “land grab” into eastern and southern Ukraine and that even the invasion of Latvia, a Nato country, is a “realistic” scenario.
“He has demonstrated that armed illegal aggression is part of the way he does business, so anything is possible,” said Shirreff.
After years of being treated by Nato as a “strategic partner”, Russia is now “a strategic adversary”, he said.
Shirreff argues that the UK and other European nations need to protect their defence budgets to deter Russia. This would mean deeper cuts to other Whitehall departments when further cuts are made after the next election.
“It may just be that rather than defence, those cuts, which will have to come, come from other budgets and other departments,” he said. “We all support the efforts to get the deficit down but it is all about priorities. What really matters? Well, the first duty of government is to protect the nation. Defence is really, really important. And the electorate need to understand there is no point in having hospitals and schools and welfare unless the country is safe.”
Unlike the Russians, the UK had lost the ability to manoeuvre huge army formations, of around 20,000 troops, around the battlefield, Shirreff said. Complex wargame exercises involving an entire division of troops, which had not been held for more than 20 years, needed to be resumed, he said."
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right, but does that make his point any less valid?
and does Hammond asserting that ex Deputy Supreme Commander of NATO, ex CDS, US SecDef, etc are wrong and that he doesn't recognise any of the comments regarding hollowed out forces, in the face of such overwhelming opposing expert evidence, really engender trust in the ability of (any) government to tell the truth? Or are political spin, lies and un-evidenced denial now so endemic that the truth effectively doesn't exist?
and does Hammond asserting that ex Deputy Supreme Commander of NATO, ex CDS, US SecDef, etc are wrong and that he doesn't recognise any of the comments regarding hollowed out forces, in the face of such overwhelming opposing expert evidence, really engender trust in the ability of (any) government to tell the truth? Or are political spin, lies and un-evidenced denial now so endemic that the truth effectively doesn't exist?
It is all about balance. The trouble is, some VSO's and all politicians have got the balance wrong by completely axing most of the UK Armed Forces. More to the point, why have they indulged in incredibly expensive procurement schemes instead of cost effective maintenance of some systems that we already had and, had paid for! 
So, in an effort to be able to fight Klingons (it would seem), we will have 1 super big ship, a couple of super aircraft and a few super troops. Not much to resist the "precise application of overwhelming force" that has been the recipe for land-grabbing wars of history. "Strength in numbers has a quality all of its own". Well, we certainly have not got the numbers now, and the "super" new kit will not make up for that because, there will simply not be enough of it because it is too expensive for us ! 
OAP
So, in an effort to be able to fight Klingons (it would seem), we will have 1 super big ship, a couple of super aircraft and a few super troops. Not much to resist the "precise application of overwhelming force" that has been the recipe for land-grabbing wars of history. "Strength in numbers has a quality all of its own". Well, we certainly have not got the numbers now, and the "super" new kit will not make up for that because, there will simply not be enough of it because it is too expensive for us ! OAP
Onceapilot,
If they've, as you somewhat exaggeratedly put it, "completely axing most of the UK armed forces" (how do you completely axe most of something?) then what are we spending the world's fourth largest defence budget on each year?
If they've, as you somewhat exaggeratedly put it, "completely axing most of the UK armed forces" (how do you completely axe most of something?) then what are we spending the world's fourth largest defence budget on each year?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
then what are we spending the world's fourth largest defence budget on each year?
That's become something of a mantra for you dear boy. Ever spent any time in N. Korea perchance?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On this point
"Unlike the Russians, the UK had lost the ability to manoeuvre huge army formations, of around 20,000 troops, around the battlefield, Shirreff said. Complex wargame exercises involving an entire division of troops, which had not been held for more than 20 years, needed to be resumed, he said.""
Not sure if the UK Military dovetail into the US system of war game exercises but that would enable various levels to maintain some level of knowledge and expertise.
Major General Jim Molan, an Australian General who ran the war in Iraq for a year (Chief of Operations) ended up going to Germany to be the "acting" US Commanding General in the major war gaming exercise prior to deployment of the Corps to Iraq since the US Commanding General knew Molan would act like he wanted.
MG Molan commented that this very senior command was one aspect that he though was lacking in the senior levels of the Australian Defence Force.
"Unlike the Russians, the UK had lost the ability to manoeuvre huge army formations, of around 20,000 troops, around the battlefield, Shirreff said. Complex wargame exercises involving an entire division of troops, which had not been held for more than 20 years, needed to be resumed, he said.""
Not sure if the UK Military dovetail into the US system of war game exercises but that would enable various levels to maintain some level of knowledge and expertise.
Major General Jim Molan, an Australian General who ran the war in Iraq for a year (Chief of Operations) ended up going to Germany to be the "acting" US Commanding General in the major war gaming exercise prior to deployment of the Corps to Iraq since the US Commanding General knew Molan would act like he wanted.
MG Molan commented that this very senior command was one aspect that he though was lacking in the senior levels of the Australian Defence Force.
Hello pr00ne. Hmmnnn... fourth largest budget? Partly smoke and mirrors, partly mispent. The inclusion of the UK nuclear sub budget has frigged the numbers around
. However, the real scandal is in the procurement of expensive new projects that a, we did not need to replace yet and b, are out of balance with our budget. IMO, the combination of the big (ish) carrier, F35 and FSTA are in this out-of-balance combo that has compromised UK Mil for the next 20+ years.
OAP
. However, the real scandal is in the procurement of expensive new projects that a, we did not need to replace yet and b, are out of balance with our budget. IMO, the combination of the big (ish) carrier, F35 and FSTA are in this out-of-balance combo that has compromised UK Mil for the next 20+ years.OAP
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
are you saying that Trident isn't part of our defence?
it was only kept in a separate pot as the navy wanted the PR benefits of having it but didn't want it to affect their $$ for "proper" ships
it was only kept in a separate pot as the navy wanted the PR benefits of having it but didn't want it to affect their $$ for "proper" ships
the procurement of expensive new projects that a, we did not need to replace yet
If so, you're saying that VC10, TriStar and Nimrod R1 (among others) should have continued indefinitely? Fair enough, Rivet Joint is accepted by most as a worthwhile investment, but to claim that the others were fit for another XXX years service is avoiding hard facts. Of course the beloved vintage airliners could have continued for ever and ever - but life extensions etc would have had to happen years ago for this to be feasible. That didn't happen = they needed to be replaced. Whether or not Voyager/Airtanker was the correct solution is a different matter...
As for the carrier and F-35, the Navy seem pretty convinced that a 'proper' carrier (no offence to the through-deck cruisers) is worthwhile, and if you're going to have a big ship, you might as well have some decent aircraft to fly from it, no?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onceapilot. Perhaps there wouldn't be an "imbalance" if we hadn't already saved past our invisible implosion point. After around 20 years of efficiency measures and Smart Procurement doctrine, many of them overlapping and at times contradictory (it's hard to make savings and efficiencies in the big picture when loads of people are doing the same, within the Instructions but uncoordinated in the component little pictures), the core budget is now too small to cover the other side of the see-saw. It would not really break the bank if the Defence Budget was returned to 5% of GDP. The killer is, though, that it wouldn't win votes. Votes are what matter, apparently.
Perhaps due to the source, I suspect that this entire argument is turning Landcentric. That's good if you want to occupy turf you don't currently have or hold on to that you do have. We really must not lose the will for superiority at sea and in the air.
Perhaps due to the source, I suspect that this entire argument is turning Landcentric. That's good if you want to occupy turf you don't currently have or hold on to that you do have. We really must not lose the will for superiority at sea and in the air.
Last edited by GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU; 1st Apr 2014 at 08:18. Reason: Too Slow Off The Launch
Golf Bravo Zulu,
5% of GDP would be another £40bn a year. Where on earth are you going to get that sort of money from? More importantly...as Pr00ne keeps asking "what are we getting for the £40bn we already spend?" As a taxpayer you can be certain that I'm not about to give another penny willingly to the organisation that I saw waste so much that it was given over the 30 years I was watching!
5% of GDP would be another £40bn a year. Where on earth are you going to get that sort of money from? More importantly...as Pr00ne keeps asking "what are we getting for the £40bn we already spend?" As a taxpayer you can be certain that I'm not about to give another penny willingly to the organisation that I saw waste so much that it was given over the 30 years I was watching!
Vasco,
You and me both! I lived in one of our European neighbours for three years. Their system is that private companies provide healthcare, free at the point of delivery. It is paid for by compulsory health insurance....the same (regulated) premium for everyone. Those on low incomes or unemployed get their premium paid by the government. The quality of healthcare is far better than here (let's face it, you buy your car, fridge, computer from companies which produce goods to make a profit and in the process make good products...or they'd go bankrupt)
I want the best healthcare...which means that the provider has to make a profit to stay in business. The NHS, like all government departments, has no individual accountability and therefore no imperative to use our money to best advantage. Thus we see fraud running at 5% of the budget (£5bn a year) and compenation payments running at £7bn a year. Why the British love the NHS is beyond me. I think the nurses and doctors on the shop floor do a pretty good job...as do our military worker bees. What goes on above in both departments though is nothing short of a scandal.
You and me both! I lived in one of our European neighbours for three years. Their system is that private companies provide healthcare, free at the point of delivery. It is paid for by compulsory health insurance....the same (regulated) premium for everyone. Those on low incomes or unemployed get their premium paid by the government. The quality of healthcare is far better than here (let's face it, you buy your car, fridge, computer from companies which produce goods to make a profit and in the process make good products...or they'd go bankrupt)
I want the best healthcare...which means that the provider has to make a profit to stay in business. The NHS, like all government departments, has no individual accountability and therefore no imperative to use our money to best advantage. Thus we see fraud running at 5% of the budget (£5bn a year) and compenation payments running at £7bn a year. Why the British love the NHS is beyond me. I think the nurses and doctors on the shop floor do a pretty good job...as do our military worker bees. What goes on above in both departments though is nothing short of a scandal.